TSA agent dies in shooting at LAX

November 1, 2013

A man opened fire inside a Los Angeles International Airport terminal Friday morning, killing a TSA agent and injuring other people.

The gunman shot his way through a security checkpoint around 9:20 a.m. Friday, The gunman then continued to fire shots as he wandered deep into LAX Terminal 3, according to Los Angeles World Airport Police Chief Patrick Gannon.

The incident ended in a shootout with airport police that left the gunman wounded and in critical condition.

A total of seven people suffered injuries during the shooting, and emergency personnel transported six individuals to hospitals, according to the Los Angeles Fire Department.

One witness named Jose told KTLA that the gunman looked like a TSA agent.

“He was dressed in all blue,” Jose said. “He looked like a TSA agent or security. He blended in with them.”

Jose said that he built a wall of luggage to shield himself and his wife from the shooter, before running away from the gunman.

The injured gunman is the only suspect in the shooting. He was carrying a long gun and a handgun.

Well I must have missed the mental illness. There so far has been nothing said or mentioned that he had mental illness. They have said he had an interest in some radical ideas and when he had some rambling texts to family in the last couple days, the family reacted appropriately and contacted authorities.

I guess I’m trying to figure out what “gun control law” would have prevented/stopped this from occurring. Based on a photo of the gun I saw on nbcnews(dot)com, it was a Colt 6920 (banned in California) with a 30-round magazine (banned in California). Gun control laws work really well don’t they?

Unfortunately, in some cases, there is absolutely nothing that can stop certain violent crimes. No amount of laws, mental healthcare, or bans can stop crime. I could get in my car tomorrow and plow into a farmers market at 60 MPH and there is no law or ban that could have stopped me. As painful as it is, we can’t legislate away crime.

Well put, Paso wino.
“No amount of laws, mental healthcare, or bans can stop crime.”
Advocates seeking laws against the Second Amendment know this also.
But disarming the public, by any means, is their goal.

I agree as well — but to be fair, not all those advocating laws restricting Second Amendment rights are primarily closet fascists. Some at the very top qualify but many are simply fooled into advocacy by a combination of ignorance on the subject and propaganda which feeds them misinformation while ignoring the negative unintended consequences.

Gun control is congruent with attempting to reduce drunk driving by taking cars away from sober people.

While law enforcement is absolutely wonderful at traffic enforcement and solving crimes, they are really lousy at preventing crime. Armed law abiding citizens can prevent/stop crimes much more effectively.

choprzrul says: “While law enforcement is absolutely wonderful at traffic enforcement and solving crimes, they are really lousy at preventing crime. Armed law abiding citizens can prevent/stop crimes much more effectively. ”

Every day in this county alone, thousands of people break speed limit laws. So why do we have those laws? Because, as a society, we’ve decided that public safety is enhanced by limiting how fast you may choose to drive. The public good outweighs an individual’s freedom drive 100 mph. Of course we can’t stop all crime. But we enact laws to promote public safety. It’s common sense. We don’t limit the easy availability of butcher knives even though people sometimes get stabbed. Why? Because the evidence shows it’s relatively rare. Unfortunately, the annual casualty statistics from gun use is unacceptably high. I don’t think more guns, or more lethal guns, is a sane response. You may disagree. But spare me the “disarming the public…is their goal” nonsense, Lame. Gov. Jerry Brown just vetoed a proposed state law banning automatic weapons. Yeah, we’re realllll close to disarming the public.

You state “I don’t think more guns, or more lethal guns, is a sane response.” While I totally respect your right to feel that way and to speak up regarding those feelings, I must point out that your feelings are not based in reality.

Homer, I think we have a lot that we agree upon. However, I think that you are wrong here. You need to take a more careful and critical look at the “casualty statistics” for a start. Even if you still consider the relationship of gun ownership to gun casualties to be too high, there is still the issue of how to address the problem. The more radical propositions could create a dangerously large split among citizens of this country and criminalize a huge number of people who will not submit to this attack on their rights.

I won’t even get into the “deterrent” benefits of an armed populace on criminals AND wanna-be tyrants. There are no universally respected statistics on that so it comes down to what individuals fear most — random attacks by occasional nut cases or persistent gradual encroachment on personal liberties by overbearing representatives of authority. We probably differ here too.

Interesting in researching. I thought it was totally illegal. Some states yes, some states no. In a lot of states (CA being one of them) you can own but only if under two inches in length.

Another interesting, while you can buy in a lot of states you would have to buy from a in state seller. U.S. law prohibits selling across state lines, so the link you provided would depend on where the seller is located.

Your speed limit example is more akin to the law making murder and robbery illegal, not the gun-banning laws. If you would like a better example to gun-banning, how about all those laws banning tobacco, alcohol, and vehicle ownership to enhance public safety. After all, more suffer at the hands of tobacco, alcohol and vehicles (all individually) than all gun crimes combined.